Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Harvey, 358 So. 2d 1224.

50 citing documents.

State v. Robinson 87 So. 3d 881 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State v. Duhon 997 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
State v. Benoit 885 So. 2d 625 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
939 , 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985) ()).
State v. Bowie 813 So. 2d 377 La. 2002
tate witnesses in it[s] possession or available to it on its computer system[.]"); (ordering the state to furnish "rap sheets of [its] principal witnesses[.]"); [5] (noting that the state's statutory discovery obligations are not predicated upon "whether an article is contained in the [DA's] file...."); -1233 (La.1978) (remanding for a determination whether the state suppressed "material" evidence, including prior arrest records of state witnesses and, if so, to order a new trial).
State v. Duvall 747 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
wherein the court held that a defense request for the prior conviction records of the State’s witnesses constituted a specific and relevant request which the trial court should have honored.
State v. Ball 756 So. 2d 275 La. 1999
939 , 83 L.Ed.2d 952 (1985) ( (allowing the admission of autopsy photographs at sentencing phase and rejecting defendant's argument that because he offered to stipulate to the facts of the crime, the photographs were not probative)).
State v. Green 735 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
205 , 98 L.Ed.2d 156 (1987)
State v. Thomas 693 So. 2d 1308 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
the supreme court stated: “The state should make available rap sheets on all state witnesses in it [sic] possession or available to it on its computer system.”
State v. Bourque 622 So. 2d 198 La. 1993
205 , 98 L.Ed.2d 156 (1987); (La.
State v. Bennett 617 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Velez 588 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
State v. Laird 551 So. 2d 1310 La. 1989
State v. Laird 551 So. 2d 1310 La. 1989
State v. Seifert 524 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
State v. Nolan 503 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State v. Hobdy 494 So. 2d 1321 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Cathey 493 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
State v. Vampran 491 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
found that the State must respond to a specific request of the defense by stating whether the State had knowledge or possession of the conviction records.
State v. Hodge 457 So. 2d 152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Whitlock 454 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State v. Alexandra 451 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Watson 449 So. 2d 1321 La. 1984
State v. Walters 440 So. 2d 115 La. 1983
State v. Willis 438 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Walker 432 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
the court found that the state must respond to a specific request of the defense by stating whether the state had knowledge or possession of the conviction records of prospective witnesses and if so, then the prosecutor must furnish them to the defense or submit them to the court for determination as to whe
State v. Hooks 421 So. 2d 880 La. 1983
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); adopted in Louisiana, State v. Washington, supra
State v. Hines 422 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
State v. Moore 414 So. 2d 340 La. 1982
State v. Edwards 406 So. 2d 1331 La. 1981
State v. Washington 407 So. 2d 1138 La. 1981
This court, found that the state must "respond to a specific request of the defense by stating whether the state had knowledge or possession of the conviction records" and if so then the prosecutor must furnish them to defense or submit them to the court for determination as to whether the defense was entitled to them.
State v. Washington 407 So. 2d 1138 La. 1981
This court, found that the state must “respond to a specific request of the defense by stating whether the state had knowledge or possession of the conviction records” and if so then the prosecutor must furnish them to defense or submit them to the court for determination as to whether the defense was entitled to them.
State v. Lindsey 404 So. 2d 466 La. 1981
State v. Gilmore, supra.
State v. Huffman 401 So. 2d 1187 La. 1981
STATE v. JUAN, Jr. 396 So. 2d 907 La. 1981
State v. Toledano 391 So. 2d 817 La. 1980
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
Distinguished State v. Anderson 390 So. 2d 878 La. 1980
in which the trial judge did not require the prosecutor to respond to a specific request by the defendant for any conviction records of prospective state witnesses it had.
State v. Williams 389 So. 2d 60 La. 1980
98) *62 held that the prior criminal records of prospective State witnesses were exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct.
State v. Dye 384 So. 2d 420 La. 1980
State v. Hammontree, supra
State v. Davis 385 So. 2d 193 La. 1980
State v. Prejean 379 So. 2d 240 La. 1980
State v. Martin 376 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
State v. Jones 373 So. 2d 524 La. 1979
1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963)
State v. Harvey 369 So. 2d 134 La. 1979
State v. Huckaby 368 So. 2d 1059 La. 1979
State v. McGraw 366 So. 2d 1278 La. 1979
where we held that no reversible error was shown by the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for prospective jurors' criminal records, an issue analogous to a request for voting records, because the record did not reflect that defendant was denied the right to question the prospective jurors on the subje
State v. Hammontree 363 So. 2d 1364 La. 1978
State v. Stovall 363 So. 2d 658 La. 1978
State v. Jackson 362 So. 2d 766 La. 1978
State v. Henderson 362 So. 2d 1358 La. 1978
2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976)
State v. Ferguson 358 So. 2d 1214 La. 1978
It is also the identical venire and grand jury which indicted Harvey and Atwell, (No. 60979 on the docket of this Court), and Youngblood (No. 61322, pending on the docket of this Court).